Moderator: Community Team
Lionz wrote:"In about 50 billion years from now, the Moon will stop moving away from us."
-http://wiki.answers.com/Q/5_facts_about_the_moon
Why would the moon eventually stop moving away from earth if it has been moving away from earth at an increasing rate?
Lionz wrote:How about we get into something a little more concrete if you can bend rates to preconceived notions about what occurred in the past?
Can we get back into dinosaurs if referring to pictures of Jurassic Park was essentially the gist of a recent secular response to evidence? Is it not true that The Travels of Marco Polo suggests that there were people hunting dinosaurs over 50 feet in length less than 1,000 years ago in it?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3806
Did Marco Polo not claim a Chinese Emperor had a number of dragons which were used to pull his chariots in parades? Do Herodotus, Josephus, Aelian, Mela, Ammianus, Esarhaddon's inscription, anonymous 4'th century Coptic monks, the 13'th century Armenian historian Matthew of Edessa and more not all attest the existence of flying reptiles? Does the Aberdeen Bestiary not clearly refer to one or more dinosaur? Is there not a city in France called Nerluc that was renamed in honor of a dragon with a horned head being killed there? Are dragons not mentioned as very rare but still living creatures in a 16th century four-volume encyclopedia entitled Historiae Animalium? Want more? What's shown and described here?
http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htm
"archaic : a huge serpent "
-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dragon
"dragon, serpent, sea monster"
"dragon or dinosaur"
-http://studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=08577
Lionz wrote:"In about 50 billion years from now, the Moon will stop moving away from us."
-http://wiki.answers.com/Q/5_facts_about_the_moon
Why would the moon eventually stop moving away from earth if it has been moving away from earth at an increasing rate?
Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,crispybits wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!
Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.
If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.
daddy1gringo wrote:Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,crispybits wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!
Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.
If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.
A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or
B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.
Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.
I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".
If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.
daddy1gringo wrote:Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,crispybits wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!
Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.
If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.
A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or
B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.
Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.
I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".
If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.
crispybits wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,crispybits wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!
Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.
If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.
A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or
B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.
Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.
I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".
If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.
I suggest you try reading some of Lionz' posts, particularly from before around page 80ish. He's constantly quoting scripture without answering a point.
"...quoting scripture without answering a point." -- "...applying them to real life events in an effort to give the Bible credibility." Like I said: neither one even close to "It's true because the Bible says so."crispybits wrote:I suggest you try reading some of Lionz' posts, particularly from before around page 80ish. He's constantly quoting scripture without answering a point.
As for the prophecy thing, that's part of the whole problem too, as people are taking passages from a very long book that are at best vague and unspecific, and then applying them to real life events in an effort to give the Bible credibility. What reason do you think they might do that - ah yes to prove God exists....
And Symmetry, you obviously having been paying much attention if you think I'm worried about annoying a theist who doesn't get his facts right
Lionz wrote:If the great pyramid backs up history according to Hebrew scripture and the scripture claims that there's a Creator of the heavens and the earth, then does the great pyramid itself not suggest that there's a Creator of the heavens and the earth?
crispybits wrote:
Still waiting for a theist to admit he might be wrong....
daddy1gringo wrote:Crispy, look at what you are saying here. You give as your opponent's position a ridiculous circular argument: "The Bible is true because the Bible says so", and when I challenge you to show me where any theist used that, you give me examples of people attempting to show the credibility of the Bible by showing the correlation of various things it says to the world outside itself, as if that were the same thing. Actually, it is exactly the opposite. It's an acknowledgement that "because the Bible says so" is not a sufficient suppoort in a discussion with a non-believer.
Now as I said, you could argue that they have not thereby really proved anything -- in many cases I might agree with you -- but you can't reasonably claim that they are just saying things are true because the Bible says so, that's insane.
Let's look at it another way. Let's say, as "devil's advocates" that it were all true -- that there is indeed a "God" and that he was behind this particular bunch of stuff being written and collected and recognized as his communication of what he's up to. Many people, yourself included, believe that it is no such thing, but just a bunch of stuff written by various people. By your line of reasoning, any attempt to show otherwise is the same as an illogical circular argument, and discarded out of hand. You say you are still waiting for a theist to admit he might be wrong, but it is you who have constructed your line of reasoning such that you never have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
PLAYER57832 wrote:crispybits wrote:
Still waiting for a theist to admit he might be wrong....
You have already met one online.. ME. I have said many times that while I firmly and completely believe in my faith, I will never declare I can prove it, definitely not in a manner acceptable to anyone else.
I think several of us are waiting to hear you and several other atheists admit that we might possibly be correct, and WITHOUT disdainful "well, then the Easterbunny/flying gnomes, etc, etc, must be true garbage."
You claim to want honest and intelligent discussion, but honest and intelligent discussion doesn't begin with outright dismissing and deriding seriously and respectfully relayed views of others. (key on the "respectful" bit... I know I have sometimes lapsed, but usually in the form of throwing a mirror up).
In the end, there is a reason why these issues are declared faith and religion, not science. Its because they are just that.. beliefs, not proven facts. BUT.. just as there are many credible theories in science, in religion and faith there are many ideas that have credibility, even if not fully proven to the measures needed by science. In fact, many of the most followed scientific theories actually have no such proof. Seems like you are demanding of faith something more than you demand even of science... or have I missed your criticism of the theory of gravity somewhere?
crispybits wrote:Similarly, christians espouse their story of god, based on a book which requires and is subject to interpretation by experts to get definitive answers, and which often contradicts itself, and then claim it as truth (except for the bits that get revised down to allegory status over time). This for a God they claim is all powerful and exists inside each of us as a guiding force as long as we are open to him. And yet I'm expected to give it credence? Sorry but I will show no respect to the idea. The people, the christians, I will respect. The idea itself is despicable in detail.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote: The latter is what most Christians are guilty of; "this part about [insert undesirable position] doesn't apply anymore solely because society changed," "this part is not part of the Bible because my sect doesn't believe it is."
They (the Catholic Church) thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't, and what is the point of the Catholic Church if they say "well we couldn't know any better because nobody else did." Then what are they for?!?!
comic boy wrote:I like Jefferson's appeal to ' Natural law ' , whether one chooses to believe such law is or is not related to a Deity is surely irrelevent to its impact on societal behaviour.
crispybits wrote:They (the Catholic Church) thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't, and what is the point of the Catholic Church if they say "well we couldn't know any better because nobody else did." Then what are they for?!?!
tzor wrote:crispybits wrote:They (the Catholic Church) thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't, and what is the point of the Catholic Church if they say "well we couldn't know any better because nobody else did." Then what are they for?!?!
Actually they did not do any such thing. The first papal letter on slavery was, ironically, a few years before the New World was discovered and it was about the treatment of the natives of the Canary Islands.
Granted, the Catholic Church was not exceptionally vocal about slavery in the Americas and it didn't help that most of the letters by the Pope to the bishops in the Untied States were generally ignored, but it is wrong to say that the Catholic Church was ever a supporter of the racial generational slavery (wherein you owned not only the person but the children of said person) as practiced in the United States.
In 1545 Paul repealed an ancient law that allowed slaves to claim their freedom under the Emperor's statue on Capital Hill, in view of the number of homeless people and tramps in the city of Rome.[14] The decree included those who had become Christians after their enslavement and those born to Christian slaves. The right of inhabitants of Rome to publicly buy and sell slaves of both sexes was affirmed.[15] Stogre (1992) asserts that the lifting of restrictions was due to a shortage of slaves in Rome.[16] In 1548 he authorized the purchase and possession of Muslim slaves in the Papal states.[17]
crispybits wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_III
So a Pope said it's OK to own slaves, but the Catholic church never did?
Paul III: <Sublimis Deus>, 1537
The pontifical decree known as "The Sublime God" has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, <Sublimis Deus> (June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians." It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.
<Sublimis Deus> was intended to be issued as the central pedagogical work against slavery. Two other bulls would be published to implement the teaching of <Sublimis,> one to impose penalties on those who fail to abide by the teaching against slavery, and a second to specify the sacramental consequences of the teaching that the Indians are true men.
...
The common pretext of the allies of "the enemy of the human race," i.e. Satan, for enslaving the Indians was that they lacked the Faith. Some of the Europeans used the reasoning that converting the Indians should be accomplished by any means necessary, thus making the Faith an excuse for war and enslavement. Paul III stated that the practice of this form of servitude was "unheard of before now." This clearly indicates that the practice of enslaving an entire ethnic group of people—the Indians of South America—for no morally justifiable reason was indeed different from anything previously encountered.
...
Thus, we see that Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639. Indeed Urban, in his document <Commissum Nobis>, appealed to the teaching of his predecessors, particularly Paul III. The pontifical teaching was continued by the response of the Holy Office on March 20, 1686, under Innocent XI, and by the encyclical of Benedict XIV, <Immensa Pastorum>, on December 20, 1741. This work was followed by the efforts of Pius VII at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to have the victors over Napoleon outlaw slavery.
“We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”
GreecePwns wrote:I think the problem with quoting Bible scripture, as Viceroy and others have, to prove that it has "predicted events" (the exact words that Viceroy has used) is indeed that it is so open to interpretation and even direct alteration. If one can interpret the Bible to have predicted X major world event, someone else could use that same verse to say it predicted Y major world event, for example and someone else can say it doesn't predict anything and in fact is a part they don't even believe in.
GreecePwns wrote:The Bible's vagueness was interpreted as a prediction of a future event, so what? Other religious and nonreligious texts and people have done the same thing - what makes the Bible special in this regard, other than the Bible saying itself that its special in this regard? The only answer Viceroy and Lionz have to that is to quote even MORE Bible scriptures and try to connect them to A or B major world events.
GreecePwns wrote: What about the predictions that the Bible was wrong on?
GreecePwns wrote:What about . To have total faith in whatever interpretation you have of a book, that interpretation must have some semblance of logic that applies to the entire text instead of an interpretation that depends on cherrypicking the parts that make you happy and ignoring the ones that don't. The latter is what most Christians are guilty of; "this part about [insert undesirable position] doesn't apply anymore solely because society changed," "this part is not part of the Bible because my sect doesn't believe it is."
GreecePwns wrote:In other words, if you're gonna quote the Bible to show it predicted major world events and therefore is the one and only true religious text, you have to do three things:
1. Define "major world event".
2. Show that the Bible predicted all major world events OR (show that it was never wrong in its predictions AND show that these predictions occur throughout the text).
3. Show that the Bible is a better predictor of major world events than other religious and nonreligious predictors, not only from its time but from more modern sources as well, in ways that don't involve the Bible or Christianity calling itself the best.
GreecePwns wrote:On top of that, such a viewpoint involves combining the question of whether or not Almighty Stuff exists with the question of deciding a "correct" religious text and interpretation of that text. These questions are separate, and treating them as one and the same inherently involves acting on knowledge of the supernatural that no one has, making the position unfalsifiable until we know for sure that Almighty Stuff exists.
TL;DR Those on the religious side continue to dance around the glaring unfalsifiability and circularity problems, despite their best attempts to distract from it.
PLAYER57832 wrote:It just a false question. You want to set up demands that just don't exist. Religion is not science. Religious texts were not set up with the same fact standards as science. This doesn't mean fiction versus fact, it means that the people reading and viewing these texts have a very different way of viewing the world, perceiving things than modern science does.
PLAYER57832 wrote:First, forget Lionz.. and, to some extent Viceroy as well. Looking to them as "representatives" of Christianity is about like saying folks who camp out at area 54 are representative of scientists...
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: ConfederateSS, Dukasaur